Kerala High Court
Deepak P.V vs Deepak Damodaran Nair on 3 July, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:48688
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2021 IN Crl.A
NO.349 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-II/ I ADDITIONAL MACT,
KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
15.07.2019 IN ST NO.7 OF 2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
DEEPAK P.V
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O RAJAN, PADAMVAYALIL, ERANHIKKAL
P.O.KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 303.
BY ADVS.
SRI.DEEPAK RAJ
SHRI.M.S.DILEEP
SMT.C.P.ROOPA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 DEEPAK DAMODARAN NAIR,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O DAMODARAN NAIR, RAKESH VILLA, THIRUVAGOOR
P.O.KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 304.
2025:KER:48688
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
2
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY ADV SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48688
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.561 of 2021
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
to call for the records of the impugned judgment and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode in S.T.No: 7/2019 and confirmed by the Hon'ble 1st additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.A. No:349/2019, dated 10/9/2021 and to acquit the revision petitioner, in the interest of Justice.
(SIC)
2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court. The Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.7/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence 2025:KER:48688 CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021 4 punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found that the petitioner is guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh fifty thousand only). In default of payment of the fine amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed before the appellate court. The appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The counsel for the petitioner raised a short point. The counsel submitted that the complainant fails to prove that he has sufficient source to lend Rs.1,50,000/-. The counsel also submitted that the complainant produced Ext.P7 account statement of one P.Sajitha, and that account statement is proved through PW2 Bank Manager. The counsel further 2025:KER:48688 CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021 5 submitted that the amount was withdrawn from that account on 27.06.2017 and the amount was alleged to be paid to the petitioner only on 24.08.2017. That itself improbabilise the case of the complainant is the case. I cannot agree with the same. Two courts, i.e., fact finding courts concurrently found in favour of the complainant that the complainant has source to lend the amount. Moreover, there is no improbability as suggested by the petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that he obtained money from one P.Sajitha and that amount is given to the petitioner. I do not think that there is any improbability in that case. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a reply notice from the side of the petitioner. Even if there is a reply notice, the petitioner has not adduced any defence evidence to rebut the presumption. I am not in a position to accept that contention. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the details of the transaction is not mentioned in the complaint or in the evidence. As I mentioned earlier, two courts concurrently found against the petitioner on all these aspects and it is found that the petitioner is guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. I see no reason to interfere.
2025:KER:48688 CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021 6
5. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence invoking the powers of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. This Court anxiously considered the impugned judgments and the contentions of the Revision petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The trial court and the appellate court considered the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned judgment. Eight months time is granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence. All coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the above period.
2025:KER:48688 CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021 7 If any amount is already deposited before the trial court, the same will be adjusted towards the fine amount, and the same should be disbursed to the respondent in accordance with law.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE